|
steinrokkan posted:Police, fire fighting, welfare services... Provided regardless of payment ability of the benefactor (at least formally). The police have no legal obligation to protect any one citizen, and even if this were not the case in many places in the US they are incapable of providing said protection.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:In which case you are hosed and need to mobilize lawyers willing to pick up civil causes (what you don't need is to buy more guns). I don't own any guns, and they are currently being sued by the ACLU. At the point the organization nominally about protecting my person is legally not required to protect my person and is also claiming it's military arm is immune from public oversight? I fail to see the argument against people wanting to protect *themselves* holding much weight. steinrokkan posted:Police Legally are not required to defend you. They are very much not a vehicle of personal defense for anyone in the United States on any level, assuming they don't flip out and mag dump into your pet dog or something anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Firefighters are also not legally required to save your house. In fact they will often let certain houses burn down if they think it will save the neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Asking your counterpart in a casual debate about legislative hypotheticals to provide operational definitions simply isn't legitimate since any operational clarity seemingly possessed by either side of the argument is at best illusory and transient. Alice: I think we should have more gun control, due to evidence X. Bob: Ok, what sort of gun control should we have? Alice: It's not legitimate to ask me that. I get that as a person who wants change you have a much harder job than I do, but how can you want change without knowing what that change is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:None of those provide personal defense. Of course they do. Just not according to your definition. LeJackal posted:The police have no legal obligation to protect any one citizen, and even if this were not the case in many places in the US they are incapable of providing said protection. They operate outside the private framework... There are multiple theories of the public sector, but it would be quite hard and involving lots of mental acrobatics to reframe the police as being outside the provision of public goods.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It would be fallacy if lethality remained uniform across all firearms. Assuming you mean "assuming someone decides to shoot you with them", as I understand pretty much the only firearms that are significantly different in lethality in actual shooting statistics are small caliber handguns which are relatively low lethality and poor for self-defense because they lack stopping ability. By which I don't even mean .22LR (which can be a passable self-defense round), but .25ACP, .32, and so on. They're also pretty poor for sporting purposes. A lot of people still die from them too, since they're easily concealed, cheap, and while they're not great for self-defense they're just fine for menacing or murdering people. I'm getting the impression you don't mean to restrict low-lethality guns though. In modern times those get very little attention from people terrified of AR-15s that don't get used much in crime, or .50 rifles that almost never are. In the past they got targeted by some laws, but mostly ones expressly targeting cheap weapons rather than targeting ones poor for non-criminal purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Police, fire fighting, welfare services... Provided regardless of payment ability of the benefactor (at least formally). Police have no legal duty to protect you, fire fighters will watch your poo poo burn unless you pay, and welfare lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Assuming you mean "assuming someone decides to shoot you with them", as I understand pretty much the only firearms that are significantly different in lethality in actual shooting statistics are small caliber handguns which are relatively low lethality and poor for self-defense because they lack stopping ability. By which I don't even mean .22LR (which can be a passable self-defense round), but .25ACP, .32, and so on. They're also pretty poor for sporting purposes. A lot of people still die from them too, since they're easily concealed, cheap, and while they're not great for self-defense they're just fine for menacing or murdering people. I'm getting the impression you don't mean to restrict low-lethality guns though. Canada actually does heavily restrict the small, low-caliber pistols with a minimum barrel length (100mm, IIRC), and an outright ban on .25/.32 pistols (not sure that includes .32-20 and the other old cowboy rounds, though). CA also had the zinc-frame ban, aimed at the Lorcin/Jimenez/etc pistols. You're right otherwise though; modern bans are largely based on "that looks scary" rather than "that's used in an awful lot of crimes". Edit: Looked up the Canadian laws, it's a ban on <105mm barrels and all .25/.32 pistols (with a short list of mostly cowboy/Olympic exemptions). The Nagant revolver is legal though, so apparently metric .32 calibers are exempt. KaiserBen fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Not in America. Well, if that's a fair assessment, that opens ground for a broad social movement, not for sedimentation of the harmful side products of the current state of affairs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
I don't think you're going to find many other countries where police and firefighters have a legal duty to protect you and your property, so it's not just an American thing. Welfare is another can of worms though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Hello, is this the fire department? My clothing is on fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:In which case you are hosed and need to mobilize lawyers willing to pick up civil causes (what you don't need is to buy more guns). So let's review... steinrokkkan comes in late in this thread from whatever hosed up inbred lovely little European country he's from, lecturing Americans on firearms, a topic of which his ignorance is only surpassed by that of his understanding of American history. Thanks for the advice, friend!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
KaiserBen posted:Canada actually does heavily restrict the small, low-caliber pistols with a minimum barrel length (100mm, IIRC), and an outright ban on .25/.32 pistols (not sure that includes .32-20 and the other old cowboy rounds, though). Yeah, I should have mentioned Canada. I pointed out earlier in the thread how Canada does that, and whether you agree or not it's actually a much more reasoned policy compared to something like the SAFE act restricting pistols above a certain weight. US gun law proposals are far heavier on things like the latter, is my point, even if you explain it by ignorance rather than malice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
In hilarious gun news yesterday some goobers in Oklahoma put a 105mm round through somebody's bedroom wall. Luckily no one got hurt but jesus someone in government should do something about this terrifying epidemic of howitzer crime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So let's review... steinrokkkan comes in late in this thread from whatever hosed up inbred lovely little European country he's from, lecturing Americans on firearms, a topic of which his ignorance is only surpassed by that of his understanding of American history. Thanks for the advice, friend! For an enlightened first world country, America sure sounds like a shithole populated by retards with inflated egos. Fister Roboto posted:I don't think you're going to find many other countries where police and firefighters have a legal duty to protect you and your property, so it's not just an American thing. Welfare is another can of worms though. What standard of protection would pass your threshold of legal duty? The last time I checked any European country had a functioning legal framework for distribution of firefighting and criminal / civil law duties. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:For an enlightened first world country, America sure sounds like a shithole populated by retards with inflated egos. You're right, it's an awful awful place people are dying to get out,it's best you stay far far away. Edit; also want to mention, no jobs for poli sci majors here, sorry
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It would be fallacy if lethality remained uniform across all firearms. Lethality is more a function of shot placement and ammunition selection than the gun the bullet comes out of. All guns are by their nature deadly weapons; a finely made Hämmerli target pistol will kill as readily as a Jimenez. Trying to somehow divide between acceptably lethal and not is a fool's errand. Furthermore, any combination of gun and ammunition capable of taking medium or large North American game animals will be quite deadly if used on a human being. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:For an enlightened first world country, America sure sounds like a shithole populated by retards with inflated egos. Are the majority of police calls in your country for events that were intercepted and prevented by the police or events where the police arrive and investigate an event that already happened?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Reminder that this whole debate over the state providing personal security is pointless because gun availability makes people less safe. The individual owning a gun is selecting "betray" in the prisoner's dilemma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Reminder that this whole debate over the state providing personal security is pointless because gun availability makes people less safe. The individual owning a gun is selecting "betray" in the prisoner's dilemma. It'd sure be pointless if you could push a button that went "boop! Guns have now disappeared."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So let's review... steinrokkkan comes in late in this thread from whatever hosed up inbred lovely little European country he's from, lecturing Americans on firearms, a topic of which his ignorance is only surpassed by that of his understanding of American history. Thanks for the advice, friend! So let's review, Pauline Kael is a horrendous xenophobe, among other things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So let's review, Pauline Kael is a horrendous xenophobe, among other things. Anti-gun people have no business calling anyone phobic about anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Anti-gun people have no business calling anyone phobic about anything. There are a set of people in this thread who aren't posting in good faith. You should ignore them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Anti-gun people have no business calling anyone phobic about anything. Truly, disliking lethal weapons that make society worse is the last acceptable prejudice. Guns have been disenfranchised and oppressed in this country for far too long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Anti-gun people have no business calling anyone phobic about anything. natetimm posted:Anti-gun people have no business calling anyone phobic about anything. I am rubber you are glue...
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I am rubber you are glue... Good one, that really showed him and eliminated all opposition to the idea of gun control. Tezzor posted:Truly, disliking lethal weapons that make society worse is the last acceptable prejudice. Guns have been disenfranchised and oppressed in this country for far too long. He didn't say you were oppressing guns, he said you were afraid of them in a visceral and reactionary way. I know you have admitted to trolling and making poo poo up as you go along, but that's no excuse for being bad at it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Reminder that this whole debate over the state providing personal security is pointless because gun availability makes people less safe. The individual owning a gun is selecting "betray" in the prisoner's dilemma. I'd rather be in a rich neighborhood filled to the brim with H&H rifles than a bad Chicago neighborhood where guns are banned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Nobody ever went on a shooting spree with an over/under that costs more than a house in a moderately ok neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Income inequality is unquestionably the single largest cause of violence in this country and try to ban the implements used for that violence is missing the forest for the trees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:
This was my first post in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
They're going to deflect by saying you (the general you) vote for crazy Republicans who don't care about inequality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Good one, that really showed him and eliminated all opposition to the idea of gun control. When was this? To use the term phobia in that context is to invoke the language of oppression and I was pointing out its absurdity. It's true that some people have a visceral fear of guns. Having a visceral fear of deadly inanimate objects used in hundreds of thousands of crimes is not comparable to bigotry against people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Income inequality is unquestionably the single largest cause of violence in this country and try to ban the implements used for that violence is missing the forest for the trees. This is fallacious as it presupposes that the two things are mutually exclusive and ignores the reality that there are tons of countries poorer, more unequal, and/or less developed than the US which have less firearms and less murder. It's easier to demand more social programs that one as an average person will get more out of than they pay in taxes, and difficult to give something up, even if that something is as irrelevant and childish as unlimited toy access.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:To use the term phobia in that context is to invoke the language of oppression and I was pointing out its absurdity. You failed. quote:It's true that some people have a visceral fear of guns. Having a visceral fear of deadly inanimate objects used in hundreds of thousands of crimes is not comparable to bigotry against people. I'm glad the poo poo that only exists in your head is now taken care of, maybe as a change of pace you'd like to try responding to the things people actually say?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:This is fallacious as it presupposes that the two things are mutually exclusive and ignores the reality that there are tons of countries poorer, more unequal, and/or less developed than the US which have less firearms and less murder. It's easier to demand more social programs that one as an average person will get more out of than they pay in taxes, and difficult to give something up, even if that something is as irrelevant and childish as unlimited toy access. Name them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Yeah that's not actually an answer. Remember what happened last time you posted Wikipedia statistics?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Yeah that's not actually an answer. Remember what happened last time you posted Wikipedia statistics? Yes, a bunch of goons whined about citing Wikipedia like that isn't more common than line-by-line post dissections in this forum and complained that out of a hundred countries' rates listed, four were marginally incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Claiming that four countries with ongoing civil wars have lower murder rates than the USA was simply the most glaring problem.Tezzor posted:there are tons of countries poorer, more unequal, and/or less developed than the US which have less firearms and less murder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Tezzor posted:Yes, a bunch of goons whined about citing Wikipedia like that isn't more common than line-by-line post dissections in this forum and complained that out of a hundred countries' rates listed, four were marginally incorrect. Here is my counter-evidence that's just as credible as yours: http://pastebin.com/mz2P80WE And the four incorrect ones were the only ones I looked at. I'm not going to go line-by-line through a Wikipedia table when you could've looked at the original data yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:57
|
|